Not really. Lehmann would have been one of the best batsmen in the world if he'd been able to play test cricket at his peak. He's consistently succeeded in domestic cricket against both pace and spin on all sorts of wickets and against all sorts of bowlers. Maintained a remarkable average in England playing half his matches at Headingley when it was usually a seamer's paradise, and so on. In both Australia and England, bowlers have always rated him one of the most difficult batsmen to bowl to, and for a guy who didn't get much in the way of opportunities his test record isn't bad either. Just ask Murali.

Even now, well past his best and in his late 30s, he's a remarkable player, particularly against spin. Absolutely dominated Stuart MacGill yesterday, for instance.

What do you mean? He has like a million runs in first class cricket as Faaip pointed out. It's not that he didn't fulfil his potential which he did in fact do, it's that he was never given a real opportunity.

What do you mean? He has like a million runs in first class cricket as Faaip pointed out. It's not that he didn't fulfil his potential which he did in fact do, it's that he was never given a real opportunity.

Not particularly stylish in terms of aesthetics, but could be very imaginative and often showed a deft hand against the spinners.

"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
- Linda

"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
- Craig

Not really. Lehmann would have been one of the best batsmen in the world if he'd been able to play test cricket at his peak. He's consistently succeeded in domestic cricket against both pace and spin on all sorts of wickets and against all sorts of bowlers. Maintained a remarkable average in England playing half his matches at Headingley when it was usually a seamer's paradise, and so on. In both Australia and England, bowlers have always rated him one of the most difficult batsmen to bowl to, and for a guy who didn't get much in the way of opportunities his test record isn't bad either. Just ask Murali.

Even now, well past his best and in his late 30s, he's a remarkable player, particularly against spin. Absolutely dominated Stuart MacGill yesterday, for instance.

How can you possibly say that? It's not as if his first-class record either now or during his peak is/was so far above his peers...nor does first-class success automatically translate to Test success. Anyway, he was just as good in first-class cricket when given chances in Test cricket as he was at his 'peak' and he performed at an average level, nothing like being "one of the best batsmen in the world".

How can you possibly say that? It's not as if his first-class record either now or during his peak is/was so far above his peers...nor does first-class success automatically translate to Test success. Anyway, he was just as good in first-class cricket when given chances in Test cricket as he was at his 'peak' and he performed at an average level, nothing like being "one of the best batsmen in the world".

Actually, I'd say Lehmann was significantly above his peers. The only batsmen who had vaguely comparable records in Australia and England at the time are Hussey and perhaps Bevan. Nobody came close to Lehmann's record at Headingley during the period he played for Yorkshire, and Hussey never matched the consistency of his performances across both domestic circuits. Bevan really improved his average later, and was cut short by a pretty woeful period with the bat in test cricket, whereas Lehmann never got given the same sort of opportunity until he was well into his 30s. The other guys who have records that are comparable to Lehmann are either test stars (Ponting, Hayden etc), from India, or people who had extended chances at test level and failed like Hick and Ramprakash.

Incidentally, Lehmann was certainly above "average" in test cricket. He averaged over 50 heading into the tour of India, had two bad series partially interrupted by injury and was then dropped. Had he been 5-10 years younger, as he would have been at that stage of his career for any other nation or at any other time, he would have had the opportunity to come back. With Hussey now on the international scene, Lehmann is without question the best batsman in the last 20 years who hasn't had an extended international career.

Actually, I'd say Lehmann was significantly above his peers. The only batsmen who had vaguely comparable records in Australia and England at the time are Hussey and perhaps Bevan. Nobody came close to Lehmann's record at Headingley during the period he played for Yorkshire, and Hussey never matched the consistency of his performances across both domestic circuits. Bevan really improved his average later, and was cut short by a pretty woeful period with the bat in test cricket, whereas Lehmann never got given the same sort of opportunity until he was well into his 30s. The other guys who have records that are comparable to Lehmann are either test stars (Ponting, Hayden etc), from India, or people who had extended chances at test level and failed like Hick and Ramprakash.

So there are batsman with comparable records, but you dismiss them. Despite there being many batsman with higher averages in India, there are batsman of the same quality of Lehmann who didn't get chances at the highest level - Ajay Sharma for one.
Anyway, you ignored the point that Lehmann is just as good in FC cricket now as he was at his 'peak', and he was just as good when he did eventually get chances at Test level. What possible evidence is there to suggest he would've been so much better if he was given chances at Test cricket when he was in similar form to when you say he was at his 'peak'?

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Incidentally, Lehmann was certainly above "average" in test cricket. He averaged over 50 heading into the tour of India, had two bad series partially interrupted by injury and was then dropped. Had he been 5-10 years younger, as he would have been at that stage of his career for any other nation or at any other time, he would have had the opportunity to come back. With Hussey now on the international scene, Lehmann is without question the best batsman in the last 20 years who hasn't had an extended international career.

He was average in Test match cricket - many batsmen are affected by injuries, it's no excuse. Looking at his record excluding Bangladesh, it's very average.
It's debatable whether he would've made every other Test side at his 'peak' - and it isn't "without question" that he is the best batsman in the last 20 years who hasn't had a long career. I already named one batsman with an even better record who didn't get a proper run. I'm sure there are others with similar records.

So there are batsman with comparable records, but you dismiss them. Despite there being many batsman with higher averages in India, there are batsman of the same quality of Lehmann who didn't get chances at the highest level - Ajay Sharma for one.
Anyway, you ignored the point that Lehmann is just as good in FC cricket now as he was at his 'peak', and he was just as good when he did eventually get chances at Test level. What possible evidence is there to suggest he would've been so much better if he was given chances at Test cricket when he was in similar form to when you say he was at his 'peak'?

It's not about being better, it's about having a longer career, more opportunities and playing in a wider variety of situations. If Tendulkar began his test career today I think it's fairly unlikely he'd average close to 60, even if he'd been making runs in first class cricket all this time. Most batsmen start to decline in their early to mid 30s, and while they still might be very successful at first class level and even at test level, it does take its toll on your potential in test cricket, travelling around the world and playing in a wide variety of conditions and so on. Lehmann certainly wasn't a failure at test level, he was a moderate success but was cut short primarily by the fact that he was past his best when he finally got an extended run in the side. Take out the last two series of his career and his average is 50+, and he had enough success in Sri Lanka and so on to suggest that he was still a very capable international batsman even at that age. Certainly his entire record isn't anything particularly special, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that it would have been given more opportunities. I'd say the number of batsman who can take Murali apart on a dustbowl and also score runs on seaming Headingley wickets are fairly few.

As far as India goes, I don't think you can really compare first class success there to Australia or England. Dozens of batsmen who don't even get close to the internaitonal side have huge averages in Indian domestic cricket, because the wickets are flat, the tactics are negative and games are almost universally high scoring. Ajay Sharma may or may not have been a great batsman, but he certainly never had any kind of success in a domestic competition outside of India, and if he had he wouldn't have had to contend with a middle order that was impossible to break into during the peak of his career.